Abraham/Isaac sacrifice

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Yes, he is drawing on jewish midrash of the story. These midrash usually expand on Genesis 22:19 in about the way you just describe (they attach great singificance to the fact the it only refers explicitly to Abraham returning and not Isaac). My understanding is that this was a very common view in the middle ages.

Of course, there's the fact that the Genesis account explicitly mentions the ram in the thicket, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad," etc.

As my teacher put it, it's as if there are two accounts of the story. Our Western linear minds have a hard time with that.

Originally Posted by PaloAltoCougar

One of my favorite parts is when the friends/home teachers visit Job and take turns at trying to figure out why Job got on God's craplist.

He wore a blue shirt to church one week.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Of course, there's the fact that the Genesis account explicitly mentions the ram in the thicket, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad," etc.

As my teacher put it, it's as if there are two accounts of the story. Our Western linear minds have a hard time with that.



He wore a blue shirt to church one week.

Hey Lingo:

Why don't you ask your Old Testament teacher what he thinks of God killing a man because of coitus interruptus (spilling his man gravy) because he didn't want to impregnate his new wife (his brother's widow)?

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Hey Lingo:

Why don't you ask your Old Testament teacher what he thinks of God killing a man because of coitus interruptus (spilling his man gravy) because he didn't want to impregnate his new wife (his brother's widow)?

Okay. Where is that?

[pelagius]

It is easy to pick on Job with some funny one liners but I really think many people miss the point of the book. Job taken as a whole provides very important theological balance to other books in the Old Testament. It provides particular balance to the "Wisdom Literature" in the OT such as proverbs where Retributive Theology is the primary theological viewpoint. Job provides a remarkable counterpoint to the "Wisdom Literature." People get hung up on the fact that the narrative is told in a very stylistic way. But the highly stylized narrative adds to the punch of the dramatic theological counterpunch. Job is a masterpiece.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Okay. Where is that?

Genesis 38:6-10

The husband of Tamar died. Judah told Onan that he had to marry Tamar, his brother's widow. Onan "wasted his seed on the ground." God killed Onan because God was displeased. Onanism=the withdrawal method. Highly unreliable. I don't recommend it. One of my best friends and his wife had an unplanned pregnancy because of this.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Of course, there's the fact that the Genesis account explicitly mentions the ram in the thicket, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad," etc.

As my teacher put it, it's as if there are two accounts of the story. Our Western linear minds have a hard time with that.

Yes, many people have hypothesized that there is editorial activity combining multiple accounts together and we are seeing evidence of editorial seams in those verses.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

Genesis 38:6-10

The husband of Tamar died. Judah told Onan that he had to marry Tamar, his brother's widow. Onan "wasted his seed on the ground." God killed Onan because God was displeased. Onanism=the withdrawal method. Highly unreliable. I don't recommend it. One of my best friends and his wife had an unplanned pregnancy because of this.

Soonercoug, it is fine to try to get some oneliners in but you are smart enough to approach the scriptures in a much more sophisticated way than you have done in this thread. Instead of trying to take potshots at stories interpretated through a particularly hermeunetic that you find distasteful, step up to the plate and outline a heremeunetic that allows the stories to be relevant and useful in modern LDS discourse. I really think your intellectual energy would be much better served in such a cause.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

One of my best friends and his wife had an unplanned pregnancy because of this.

If you're having sex without any form of birth control, how is any pregnancy unplanned?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Soonercoug, it is fine to try to get some oneliners in but you are smart enough to approach the scriptures in a much more sophisticated way that you have done in this thread. Instead of trying to take potshots at stories interpretated through a particularly hermeunetic that you find distasteful, step up to the plate and outline heremeunitic that allows the stories to be relevant and useful in modern LDS discourse.

I think the stories are fine if they are interpreted this way:

1) Written by ancient non-prophets who were describing and interpreting awful events

AND/OR

2) Pure mythology that speaks to every human being's desire to understand why life tends to suck from time to time

But when people ponder what these stories tell us about God, then I tune out, because these stories aren't about God. I think these stories are about people writing stories. They might be entertaining stories, and they might tell us something about humanity, and they might even be beautifully written...but that doesn't make me embrace them as theology.

I can't discuss this crap with Lingo because he's too far gone.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

If you're having sex without any form of birth control, how is any pregnancy unplanned?

Coitus interruptus is a form of birth control.